Trading spaces: Calculating embodied Ecological Footprints in international trade using a Product Land Use Matrix (PLUM)
Nations import and export biophysical resources. With many ecosystems worldwide under mounting stress, countries may be increasingly interested in knowing the extent and origin of their ecological imports and dependencies. In this paper the Ecological Footprint is used as a tool to measure the biophysical (as opposed to financial) value of international trade flows. This paper attempts to answer the following question: How large of an Ecological Footprint does a given country exert inside the borders of each of its trading partners? Records in the UN COMTRADE bilateral trade database are multiplied by a matrix of per-product Footprint yield coefficients to translate from values in dollars and tonnes to units of hectares. The results show that the largest interregional flows are from Latin to North America, and from North America to Asia-Pacific. Grouping countries by GDP, high and middle income countries appear in Footprint terms to trade predominantly with other high and middle income countries and much less with low income countries.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Wiedmann, Thomas & Lenzen, Manfred, 2007. "On the conversion between local and global hectares in Ecological Footprint analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 673-677, February.
- Lenzen, Manfred & Borgstrom Hansson, Carina & Bond, Stuart, 2007. "On the bioproductivity and land-disturbance metrics of the Ecological Footprint," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 6-10, February.
- Hubacek, Klaus & Giljum, Stefan, 2003. "Applying physical input-output analysis to estimate land appropriation (ecological footprints) of international trade activities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 137-151, February.
- Proops, John L. R. & Atkinson, Giles & Schlotheim, Burkhard Frhr. v. & Simon, Sandrine, 1999. "International trade and the sustainability footprint: a practical criterion for its assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 75-97, January.
- Bicknell, Kathryn B. & Ball, Richard J. & Cullen, Ross & Bigsby, Hugh R., 1998. "New methodology for the ecological footprint with an application to the New Zealand economy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 149-160, November.
- Glen Peters & Edgar Hertwich, 2006. "Structural analysis of international trade: Environmental impacts of Norway," Economic Systems Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 155-181.
- Norgaard, Richard B., 1989. "Three dilemmas of environmental accounting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 1(4), pages 303-314, December.
- Leontief, Wassily, 1970. "Environmental Repercussions and the Economic Structure: An Input-Output Approach," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 52(3), pages 262-71, August.
- Wiedmann, Thomas & Minx, Jan & Barrett, John & Wackernagel, Mathis, 2006. "Allocating ecological footprints to final consumption categories with input-output analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 28-48, January.
- Hornborg, Alf, 2006. "Footprints in the cotton fields: The Industrial Revolution as time-space appropriation and environmental load displacement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 74-81, August.
- Duchin, Faye & Lange, Glenn-Marie, 1995. "The Future of the Environment: Ecological Economics and Technological Change," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195085747, May.
- Helga Weisz & Faye Duchin, 2004.
"Physical and Monetary Input-Output Analysis: What Makes the Difference?,"
Rensselaer Working Papers in Economics
0422, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Department of Economics, revised May 2005.
- Weisz, Helga & Duchin, Faye, 2006. "Physical and monetary input-output analysis: What makes the difference?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 534-541, May.
- Mongelli, I. & Tassielli, G. & Notarnicola, B., 2006. "Global warming agreements, international trade and energy/carbon embodiments: an input-output approach to the Italian case," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 88-100, January.
- van den Bergh, Jeroen C. J. M. & Verbruggen, Harmen, 1999. "Spatial sustainability, trade and indicators: an evaluation of the 'ecological footprint'," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 61-72, April.
- Ferng, Jiun-Jiun, 2003. "Allocating the responsibility of CO2 over-emissions from the perspectives of benefit principle and ecological deficit," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 121-141, August.
- Bastianoni, Simone & Pulselli, Federico Maria & Tiezzi, Enzo, 2004. "The problem of assigning responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 253-257, July.
- Lenzen, Manfred & Murray, Shauna A., 2001. "A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 229-255, May.
- Munksgaard, Jesper & Pedersen, Klaus Alsted, 2001. "CO2 accounts for open economies: producer or consumer responsibility?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 327-334, March.
- Leontief, Wassily & Duchin, Faye, 1986. "The Future Impact of Automation on Workers," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195036237, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:7:p:1938-1951. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.